Specific Contract No 070307/2013/666175/FRA/ENV.C.3 implementing Framework Contract No ENV.C.3/FRA/2013/0013-IIASA Adjusted historic emission data, projections, and optimized emission reduction targets for 2030 – A comparison with COM data 2013 Part A: Results for EU-28 TSAP Report #16A Version 1.1 Editor: Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis IIASA January 2015
41
Embed
Adjusted historic emission data, projections, and ... · emissions and associated impacts, the scope for further emission reduction options, and cost‐ effective emission reduction
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Specific Contract No 070307/2013/666175/FRA/ENV.C.3 implementing Framework Contract
No ENV.C.3/FRA/2013/0013-IIASA
Adjusted historic emission data,
projections, and optimized emission reduction
targets for 2030 – A comparison with
COM data 2013
Part A: Results for EU-28
TSAP Report #16A
Version 1.1
Editor: Markus Amann
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis IIASA
January 2015
The authors
This report has been produced by
Markus Amann
Imrich Bertok
Jens Borken‐Kleefeld
Janusz Cofala
Chris Heyes
Lena Hoglund‐Isaksson
Gregor Kiesewetter
Zbigniew Klimont
Wolfgang Schöpp
Nico Vellinga
Wilfried Winiwarter
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
Acknowledgements
This report was produced under the contract ‘Services related to the assessment of specific
emission reduction scenarios at EU and Member State level, notably reflecting national positions,
the interaction with climate policy, and possible flexible implementation mechanisms’, Specific
7.3 Emissions control costs ......................................................................................................... 39
Page 3
More information on the Internet
All details data of the updated GAINS emission inventory and projections for 2030 can be retrieved
from the GAINS‐online model (http://gains.iiasa.ac.at/gains/EUN/index.login?logout=1).
Under the Scenario group ‘TSAP Report #16’, the following scenarios can be examined in an
interactive mode:
WPE2014‐CLE: The updated ‘current legislation’ projection for 2030 of
the PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE activity projection
WPE2014‐MTFR: The updated ‘maximum technically feasible emission
reduction’ projection for 2030 of the PRIMES 2013
REFERENCE activity projection
WPE2014‐OPT: The re‐optimized 67% gap closure scenario of the PRIMES
2013 REFERENCE activity projection for 2030
NAT2014‐CLE: The updated ‘current legislation’ scenario for 2030 for the
national activity projections
NAT2014‐MTFR: The updated ‘maximum technically feasible emission
reduction’ scenario for 2030 for the national activity
projections
Page 4
List of acronyms
CAPRI Agricultural model developed by the University of Bonn
CH4 Methane
CLE Current legislation
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COM European Commission
ERC Emission Reduction Commitments
EU European Union
GAINS Greenhouse gas ‐ Air pollution Interactions and Synergies model
GDP Gross domestic product
IED Industrial Emissions Directive
IIASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
kt kilotons = 103 tons
MTFR Maximum technically feasible emission reductions
NEC National Emission Ceilings
NH3 Ammonia
NMVOC Non‐methane volatile organic compounds
NOx Nitrogen oxides
PJ Petajoule = 1015 joule
PM10 Fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 µm
PM2.5 Fine particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 µm
PRIMES Energy Systems Model of the National Technical University of Athens
SO2 Sulphur dioxide
TSAP Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WPE Working Party on Environment of the European Council
YOLL Years of life lost
Page 5
1 Background
Current levels of air pollution in Europe cause substantial health and environmental impacts. For
instance, in 2010 more than 400,000 premature mortalities annually are linked to exposure to fine
particulate matter (EC 2013a). In 2013, the European Commission has proposed a Clean Air Policy
Package with the aim to reduce in 2030 health impacts from air pollution by 52% compared to 2005
(EC 2013b).
It is important to note that fine particles remain in the atmosphere for several days during which
they are transported over several hundreds of kilometres. As a consequence, locally occurring PM
ambient air quality levels are to a significant extent influenced by emission sources in other
countries. The analyses for all Member States that are provided in TSAP Report #12 (Kiesewetter and
Amann 2014) remain relevant.
To provide a realistic chance for local and national authorities to take effective measures for
achieving compliance with air quality limit values, the Clean Air Policy Package includes a proposal
for amending the Directive on National Emission Ceilings. To limit the transboundary exchange of
emissions, the proposal contains national emission reduction commitments for the five main
precursor emissions of fine particulate matter in ambient air and for methane. In addition, the
proposal will have further positive side‐effects in relation to ground‐level ozone, acidification and
eutrophication problems.
The proposal of the European Commission has been informed by quantitative modelling of baseline
emissions and associated impacts, the scope for further emission reduction options, and cost‐
effective emission reduction strategies. These analyses have been carried out by the International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) using the GAINS Integrated Assessment Modelling suite
(http://gains.iiasa.ac.at). Final results are presented, inter alia, in the impact assessment
accompanying the Commission proposal (EC 2013a) and the TSAP Report #11 (Amann et al. 2014a).
For the analysis for the Clean Air Policy Package, IIASA has compiled information from a variety of
different statistical sources, with the aim to reproduce as closely as possible the emission inventories
for the year 2005 as they were reported by countries in 2012 while matching international energy,
agricultural, transport and industrial statistics. However, after 2012, many Member States have
come forward with revised statistical information on emission inventories for the year 2005, with
numerous significant changes compared to the 2012 submission.
After the start of the deliberations on the Clean Air Policy Package of the Council Working Party on
Environment (WPE), between March and July 2014 IIASA held bilateral meetings with all 28 Member
States involving more than 110 experts to review and update input data in view of new statistical
information.
Outcomes of these bilateral consultations are summarized in TSAP Report #13 (Amann et al. 2014b).
The new information emerging from the consultations has been incorporated into the GAINS
databases (TSAP Report #14, Amann et al. 2014c). Due to late information from Member States,
some adjustments could not be accounted for in that report. In general, for national totals, the new
GAINS estimates for 2005 now match the latest 2014 national submissions quite closely, and
differences are now typically within a few percentage points, which is well within the range in which
national submissions have changed between 2012 and 2014. Remaining discrepancies between
updated GAINS estimates and reported number for 2005 can be explained by objective reasons.
Page 6
Changes in the 2005 GAINS estimates also affect projections of future emissions and mitigation
potentials. As shown in TSAP Report #14, the originally proposed health and environmental targets
as well as the resulting emission reduction requirements remain technically achievable also in the
updated context (i.e., for the revised emission baseline projections), although not necessarily cost‐
effective. Since the Commission has proposed cost‐effectiveness as an important criterion for setting
national emission reduction commitments, this TSAP Report #16 presents an updated set of
emission reduction commitments that would meet the health and environmental targets proposed
by European Commission in the Clean Air Policy Package in a cost‐effective way, based on the
revised historic emission estimates and the consequently adapted projections.
This report addresses emissions of air pollutants SO2, NOx, PM2.5, NH3 and VOC. Although the
Commission proposal also includes emission reduction commitments for methane (due to its role as
an ozone precursor), this report does not deal with CH4 emissions, as they are subject of ongoing
deliberations between the Member States and the Commission in the context of the 2014 Climate
and Energy Package. To maintain consistency with the Climate and Energy Package, no further
changes on CH4 were introduced in GAINS at this time, pending further discussions in Council and
Parliament on synergies between the Climate and Energy Package and the Air Quality Package.
The remainder of this report is organized as follows: Section 2 summarizes the changes that have
been introduced in the GAINS databases based on the bilateral consultations. The consequences on
baseline emissions in 2030 and the scope for further emission reductions are discussed in Section 3.
Section 4 presents an updated optimized emission control scenario that meets the health targets
established in the Clean Air Policy Package, taking into account the new statistical information. The
robustness of the resulting emission reduction requirements in view of alternative national
projections of future activity levels is discussed in Section 5. Conclusions are drawn in Section 6.
Results at the Member States level, including explanations of the differences to the original 2013
Commission Proposal, are provided in Part B of this report.
Page 7
2 Recent changes in the GAINS database
As mentioned above, the bilateral consultations with national experts resulted in a number of
updates in the GAINS databases compared to status of the analyses for the Commission proposal of
the Clean Air Policy Package (documented in TSAP Report #11). The main updates relate to the
representation of the structure of emission sources in 2005, for which new and sometimes more
detailed statistical information has emerged after 2012. In many cases, this new information has also
impacts on the future the evolution of emissions due to, e.g., different structures of emission
sources in the base year and their foreseen evolution until 2030, or modified implementation
schedules for current legislation. In addition, national experts provided also alternative projections
of energy or agricultural activities, which have now been implemented in the GAINS database as a
separate scenario to facilitate sensitivity analyses.
The bilateral discussions revealed that most of the discrepancies between the 2005 GAINS estimates
for the Commission proposal and the latest (2014) submissions of national inventories for 2005 are
related to four factors:
changes in national 2005 estimates between the 2012 and 2014 submissions,
different coverage of sources,
IIASA’s use of a uniform calculation methodology, and
discrepancies between national and international official statistics.
A considerable number of Member States have revised their emission estimates for the year 2005 in
the last two years as compared to the 2012 submission of national inventories against which the
GAINS model was calibrated after the last round of bilateral consultations in 2012. These changes
were discussed at the bilateral meetings, and updated information was subsequently implemented
in the GAINS databases. Sectors that are not reported in national inventories have been identified,
and plausible estimates have been developed with national experts for inclusion in the international
cost‐effectiveness analysis. This was also done for sources for which Member States applied
simplified methodologies in the inventories that do not take account of important national
circumstances with large impact on mitigation potentials. Finally, Member States provided
additional statistical information to improve the accuracy of information derived from international
statistics.
All this information has been incorporated into the GAINS databases and is documented in detail in
TSAP Report #14 (Amann et al. 2014c). However, some of the information came in too late to be
included into the TSAP report #14. Updated emission estimates have been performed, resulting in a
largely improved match of GAINS estimates with national inventories while preserving international
comparability, as documented in this report. In general, for national totals, the new GAINS estimates
for 2005 match the latest reported estimates for 2005 (2014 national submissions) quite closely, and
differences are now typically within a few percentage points.
Nevertheless, there remain notable exceptions where differences for national totals are significant.
In all cases, there are important and objective reasons that explain these differences, e.g., missing
sectors in national inventories, different calculation methodologies, differences in statistical data
(e.g., on fleet composition), or forthcoming new submissions that will be close to the updated GAINS
estimate. Also, the remaining differences at the sectorial level, often being larger, can be explained
Page 8
by objective reasons. Unresolved differences have been discussed with national experts, quantified
and well documented.
Compared to the 2005 GAINS estimates used for the Commission proposal, largest differences occur
for SO2, where for the EU‐28 the updated GAINS inventory for 2005 is six percent lower than before
due to significant downwards revisions of the recent national inventories in a few countries
(especially Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary and Portugal). For VOC, EU‐28 emissions in 2005 are
estimated now four percent lower (mainly due to changes in France, Italy, Romania, Spain, Czech
Republic and Finland). Total NOx declined by two percent (Italy and Spain), PM2.5 by one percent,
and the total NH3 estimate for the EU‐28 remains constant.
Changes in the 2005 GAINS estimates (e.g., different sector splits, implementation levels of emission
control measures, etc.) will also affect projections of future emissions and further mitigation
potentials. Member States experts have also provided pieces of new information that affects the
likely future evolution of emissions. This includes, e.g., modified implementation schedules of
specific emission control measures in a country, or physical circumstances that limit the applicability
of emission control measures (e.g., different size distributions of installations, etc.). To the extent
that this new information was well documented and coherent with data and assumptions for other
Member States, changes have been incorporated into the baseline scenario of the GAINS database.
Other proposed modifications (as long as they are internally consistent), together with alternative
projections of emission generating activities, have been included into a ‘NATIONAL PROJECTIONS’
scenario that is used for the sensitivity analysis presented in this report.
Page 9
3 Revised baseline emissions and the scope for further reductions in
2030
Suggested changes to the historic emission estimates and projections that have been incorporated in
the GAINS database have resulted in a revised baseline and MTFR. These were used as the basis for
the re‐optimization (Table 4.1).
The largest changes emerge for PM2.5, where the new reduction in baseline emissions for the EU‐28
in 2030 is five percentage points greater than before. A large part of this relates to the revised 2005
inventory reported for France for its industrial non‐combustion process emissions. The remaining
part of the difference largely relates to updated data on emissions of agricultural waste burning and
more detailed structural information on small combustion sources.
The reduction in baseline emissions of VOC in 2030 would be one percentage point less than before,
resulting from the new inventory information. For NOx, again, the reduction in baseline emissions in
2030 is two percentage points less than before (due especially to lower emissions in the industrial
sectors, inter alia, of Germany and Spain). Finally, changes in the baseline emissions for SO2 and NH3
are very limited (less than one percentage point difference at the EU‐28 level).
In summary, and in relation to the respective 2005 levels, the decline in the EU‐28 baseline
emissions for 2030 is now 74% instead of 73% for SO2, 63% instead of 65% for NOx, 8% instead of 7%
for NH3 and 40% instead of 41% for VOC. The largest difference occurs for PM2.5, where the revised
baseline leads to a 32% reduction in 2030 compared to 2005 instead of the 27% decline that was
estimated before.
The differences between the revised and former estimates of the Maximum Technically Feasible
Reductions (relative to 2005) are less than two percentage points for all pollutants. There is an
exception for VOC, where updated information on the applicability of low solvents paints, coating
and inks provided by some countries and extrapolated to all Member States reduces the emission
reduction potential by five percentage points.
In 2030, the larger baseline decline in PM2.5 emissions lead to slightly higher overall emission
reductions in terms of PMeq (‐50% instead of ‐49%). At the same time, estimated costs for
implementation of current legislation are slightly lower (€89.6bn/yr instead of €90.2bn/yr), mainly as
a consequence of the more detailed information on the structure of non‐road mobile machinery.
Page 10
4 Re‐optimized emission reduction targets
4.1 Re‐optimizing whilst keeping the health target of the initial Clean Air Policy
Package
In its 2013 Clean Air Policy Package, the Commission proposed for 2030 a 67% gap closure in terms
of PM health impacts, corresponding to reduction of air pollution related mortality of 52% between
2005 and 2030. The proposal defines the ‘gap closure’ as the additional percentage improvement of
premature mortality between what will be achieved with current legislation and what can be
achieved with implementation of all available technical measures
The updated statistical information that has emerged from the consultations with Member States
has implications for a cost‐effective achievement of this target. First, the boundaries of the ‘gap
closure’, i.e., the current legislation (CLE) starting point as well as the scope for further measures
(MTFR) in 2030, are different from what has been assumed for the original Commission proposal in
absolute terms (Figure 4.1, left panel).
Figure 4.1: Costs for additional improvements of premature mortality beyond the CLE baselines in 2030
However, at the same time the reference point, i.e., the situation in 2005, has been updated too. It
turns out that, while for 2030 the absolute values of emissions and resulting health impacts have
changed as a consequence of the bilateral consultations, there are only minor differences in the
relative change to 2005 if the scope for further emission reductions is compared to the updated
2005 reference level (Figure 4.1, right panel).
On this basis, an updated emission control scenario has been explored that achieves the same gap
closure of 67% as in the original Commission proposal. This gap closure results in the same relative
reduction in premature mortality compared to 2005 (‐52%) as the original Commission proposal.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
‐80‐60‐40‐200
Billion €/yr
Reduction in premature mortality (million YOLLs over the baseline in 2030)
Emission control costs ‐ PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE
Emission control costs ‐ WPE 2014
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
40% 45% 50% 55% 60%
Billion €/yr
'Reduction in premature mortality (percentage reduction from level of YOLLSs in 2005)
Emission control costs ‐ PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE
Emission control costs ‐ WPE 2014
Clean Air Policy Package target 67% gap closure
Page 11
4.2 Main results
4.2.1 Emission reductions
To achieve the same 52% reduction in health impacts relative to 2005, the reduction in total
emissions ‐ measured in terms of PM‐equivalents (see TSAP Report #15) ‐ remains the same in the
new optimized scenario (‐63% relative to 2005).
However, as a consequence of the updated information on the structure of emission sources in
2030, costs for additional emission reductions beyond the current legislation are now lower than
estimated before. While technology costs for emission control measures have not been modified,
new information about the current and envisaged structure of emission sources has revealed a
larger potential for cheaper reductions beyond the current legislation case.
Especially for PM2.5, there is now a larger potential beyond the baseline for low cost measures to
reduce PM2.5 emissions. The new statistics about the structure of solid fuel use in households and
more conservative expectations about the turnover of existing stoves in the current legislation case
enlarge the scope for implementation of relatively cheap cleaner devices (e.g., improved stoves) to
achieve further emission reductions beyond current legislation. Also, the updated information on
industrial process emissions in the French emission inventory results in a steeper decline in baseline
emissions (−32% instead of −27%). Thus, the need for additional cuts in PM2.5 to achieve the 67%
gap closure (and the 52% health improvement) declines from 24 to 22 percentage points. In turn,
this results in lower marginal abatement costs in the new scenario, not only for PM2.5 but also for
the other pollutants, so that the new scenario does not employ some of the most expensive
measures that were contained in the original Commission proposal (Table 4.2).
For these reasons, emission control costs (on top of current legislation) for the 67% gap closure level
decline from €3.3bn/yr to €2.2bn/yr (Figure 4.1, right panel). This results also in lower marginal costs
of the cost‐effective set of measures,
Table 4.1: Summary table for EU‐28, emission changes relative to 2005 (2005 and 2012: reported by Parties to CLRTAP in 2014; 2020: Gothenburg protocol commitments; 2030: COM 2013: Commission proposal 2013, WPE 2014: re‐optimized ceilings based on the bilateral consultations carried out for the Council Working Party on Environment; figures relative to the GAINS estimates for 2005)
Table 4.6: NH3 emission reductions of the optimized scenario by category, relative to 2005 for the EU‐28 (kilotons)
Activity changes
2005‐2030
Baseline control measures 2005‐2030
Additional control
measures 2030
Total reduction
Pigs ‐8.1 ‐77.4 ‐153.7 ‐239.1
Poultry 40.2 ‐115.6 ‐76.1 ‐151.6
Cattle ‐10.4 ‐40.0 ‐218.8 ‐269.3
of which Dairy 63.0 ‐31.0 ‐165.5 ‐133.6
Meat ‐73.4 ‐9.0 ‐53.3 ‐135.7
Other animals ‐1.8 ‐0.8 ‐6.6 ‐9.3
Mineral fertilizers ‐9.8 ‐11.3 ‐183.9 ‐205.0
Other non ‐agricultural sources ‐53.4 ‐19.2 ‐35.6 ‐108.2
TOTAL ‐43.3 ‐264.4 ‐674.7 ‐982.5
Page 18
Table 4.7: VOC emission reductions of the optimized scenario by category, relative to 2005 for the EU‐28 (kilotons)
Activity changes
2005‐2030
Baseline control measures 2005‐2030
Additional control
measures 2030
Total reduction
Power plants ‐7 ‐6 ‐25 ‐38Domestic combustion 9 ‐408 ‐270 ‐668Industry (combustion and processes, excluding solvent use)
92 ‐74 ‐6 12
Road transport ‐708 ‐886 0 ‐1594of which Light duty ‐737 ‐714 0 ‐1451 Heavy duty 29 ‐172 0 ‐143Non road mobile ‐10 ‐348 ‐23 ‐381Refineries (processes) ‐40 ‐44 ‐7 ‐91Production, storage and distribution of oil products
‐202 ‐36 ‐4 ‐242
Solvent use 252 ‐1050 ‐60 ‐858Other sectors ‐28 ‐2 ‐162 ‐193of which ban of agr. waste burning 24 0 ‐140 ‐115TOTAL ‐641 ‐2856 ‐557 ‐4053
Page 19
5 Sensitivity analyses
5.1 National activity projections
During bilateral consultations, some national experts requested that the feasibility be tested using
national perspectives on economic development and energy policies that are sometimes different
from the Europe‐wide coherent scenario that has been employed by the Commission for its Clean
Air Policy Package proposal (as well as for developing other policy initiatives such as CEP). Different
national perspectives on the future evolution of emission generating activities, i.e., energy,
transport, agricultural and industrial activities, were considered most relevant by national experts as
these would affect baseline emissions in the future as well as the potential and costs for additional
cuts in emissions.
To facilitate an analysis of potential implications of such different perspectives on the overall
feasibility of the targets, alternative national projections of activity levels have been considered for
19 Member States that provided such information during the consultations to IIASA (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1: Coverage of national activity projections provided by Member States for the year 2030
Energy use, industrial production
Transport Agriculture VOC‐related activities
AT x x x BE x BG HR x CY x x x CZ x x DK x EE x x x FI FR DE x x x GR HU x IE x x x IT x x x x LV LT x x x LU MT x x NL x x x PL PT x x RO x x SK x SI x ES SE UK x x
The available national projections to IIASA have been implemented into a common ‘NATIONAL
PROJECTIONS’ scenario in the GAINS database. However, not all Member States have provided
national projections, and in many cases the alternative projections do not cover all emission sources.
Page 20
In total, alternative data have been supplied for roughly one third of the major source categories
(i.e., energy, transport, agriculture and VOC‐related activities). As the GAINS analysis requires full
coverage of countries and emission source categories, data for missing sectors or countries have
been filled with the respective data of the PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE scenario. This means that the
NATIONAL PROJECTIONS scenario differs from the PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE scenario only for those
sectors and countries for which national data have been supplied to IIASA.
Such an incomplete alternative scenario is not suitable as a basis for a (EU‐wide) cost‐effectiveness
analysis, as it would introduce serious distortions across countries depending on the degree that
national scenarios have been supplied. Furthermore, while IIASA has attempted to validate internal
consistency of the projections (e.g., balancing demand and supply of energy) to the extent possible
without contradicting supplied information, the available projections are not mutually consistent,
e.g., in terms of international trade of energy and agricultural products. Furthermore, they are not
always in line with established targets of EU policies. For instance, the energy patterns of the
national scenarios from the 11 Member States alone that have provided data on energy use would
lead in 2030 to two percent higher CO2 emissions than those of the PRIMES REFERENCE scenario.
This means that the CO2 emissions would decline only by 25% between 2005 and 2030, compared to
27% of the PRIMES REFERENCE scenario, which in turn does not consider the recent agreements on
climate and energy policy. For comparison, a scenario that would achieve these recent targets (40 %
GHG reduction compared to 1990) would reduce CO2 emissions by 34% in 2030 relative to 2005.
For livestock numbers, the national projections of just the 12 Member States that supplied data
increase the numbers of pigs in the EU‐28 by nine percent, and the number of dairy cattle by five
percent compared to the Commission scenario.
Given these shortcomings in the national projections, a sensitivity analysis has been conducted that
examines, for the 19 Member States that have provided national projections, the technical feasibility
of the emission reduction commitments of the updated policy scenario presented above under these
alternative projections.
For these countries, the current legislation case would reduce SO2, NOx and VOC emissions by two
percentage points less than the WPE 2014 scenario; CLE baseline reductions of NH3 would be three
percentage points lower, and the decline of PM2.5 would be four percentage points less (Table 5.2).
Differences for the maximum technically feasible (MTFR) reductions are significantly smaller, with a
two percentage points smaller potential for NH3 emissions and a one percentage point lower
potential for PM2.5. These differences are not caused by differences in assumptions on the
applicability of measures between the WPE 2014 scenario and the national projections scenario, but
solely by differences in activity projections.
As a main finding, with the exception of the NH3 targets for three countries, the re‐optimized
emission reduction requirements can be technically achieved in all countries that have supplied
national activity projections.
On average (for these 19 countries), the margin of the re‐optimized emission reduction commitment
to MTFR under the national projections scenario for SO2 is four percent; for NOx the margin is nine
percent, for PM2.5 10 percent, for NH3 17 percent, and for VOC 26 percent. Details for individual
Member States are provided in Part B of TSAP Report #16.
Page 21
Table 5.2: The re‐optimized emission reduction commitments (relative to 2005) of the 19 Member States that supplied national activity projections1), compared to the current legislation (CLE) and maximum technically feasible reduction (MTFR) scenarios, for the NATIONAL PROJECTIONS and the WPE 2014 scenarios
WPE 2014 NATIONAL PROJECTIONS WPE 2014
Re‐optimized
CLE MTFR Average margin of the re‐optimized scenario to MTFR
CLE MTFR Average margin of the re‐optimized scenario to MTFR
SO2 ‐78% ‐68% ‐82% +4% ‐70% ‐82% +5%
NOx ‐66% ‐61% ‐73% +9% ‐63% ‐73% +9%
PM2.5 ‐55% ‐30% ‐62% +10% ‐34% ‐63% +12%
NH3 ‐27% ‐6% ‐33% +17% ‐9% ‐35% +22%
VOC ‐43% ‐36% ‐59% +26% ‐38% ‐59% +27%
PMeq ‐61% ‐45% ‐66% +8% ‐48% ‐67% +9%
1) Not all 19 Member States provided projections for all sectors and pollutants. For this table, lacking sectorial
projections have been filled with the PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE scenario
As mentioned above, while on average there is a reasonable margin for feasibility of the re‐
optimized emission reduction requirements under the assumptions of the national activity
projections, exceptions occur for the NH3 targets of Hungary, Slovakia and the UK, although only for
Hungary the MTFR level under national assumptions exceeds the re‐optimized emission level for the
WPE 2014 scenario significantly.
The main factor responsible for the difficulties with achieving the proposed emission reductions
emissions relates to strong increases in livestock numbers that are assumed in many national
scenarios. Particularly large increases have been provided by Hungary and Slovakia, where cattle and
pig numbers, after their decline in the 1990s, are assumed to recover in the coming years to the pre‐
2000 levels. In contrast, the Europe‐wide scenario, based on livestock projections of the CAPRI
agricultural model, foresees only slight recovery from today onwards, constrained inter alia by
international competition on the agricultural market. In 2030, total livestock numbers in the national
projections are for Hungary 71% and for Slovakia 41% higher than the corresponding CAPRI
projections.
Also the UK national projection suggests strong growth of dairy cows (+20%) and pig (+28%)
numbers, while the CAPRI projection anticipates a slight decline. Thereby, national livestock
projections for dairy cattle, pigs, and sheep are about 20%, 36%, and 25% higher than in the EU‐wide
CAPRI scenario. Under these high growth assumptions, the emission reduction requirements for NH3
optimized for the WPE 2014 scenario would not be achievable with the measures currently
considered in the GAINS model.
It should be mentioned that also many other countries provided national agricultural projections
with substantial increases in livestock numbers. As explained above, projections of just the 12
Member States that supplied national projections would increase in 2030 the overall livestock
numbers in the EU‐28 for pigs by nine percent and for dairy cattle by five percent (assuming no
differences for the countries that have not supplied national projections). However, despite these
increases, the emission reduction requirements of the optimized scenario are still achievable in all
other countries.
Page 22
Figure 5.1: Livestock projections for Hungary and Slovakia, the NATIONAL PROJECTIONS (dashed lines) against the PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE scenario (solid lines)
5.2 Impacts of the 2014 Climate and Energy Policy Package
There are important interactions between climate and air quality policies (e.g., Barker et al. 2007). In
particular, stringent climate and energy efficiency policies will reduce the consumption of polluting
fuels, which in turn will alleviate air pollution damage for human health and the environment, and
lower the costs for further air pollution control measures.
In 2014, the European Commission adopted its Communication ‘A policy framework for climate and
energy in the period 2020‐2030’, setting out climate and energy policy targets based on a 40%
reduction in GHG emissions in 2030 (EC 2014a). Furthermore, on 23 July 2014, the European
Commission adopted a Communication on ‘Energy efficiency and its contribution to energy security
and the 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy policy’, in which it proposed an additional target on
energy efficiency. In 2030, gross final energy consumption should be 30% lower than expected under
the business‐as‐usual projection made in 2007 (EC 2014b).
Obviously, the lower energy consumption and the decarbonisation of the energy system that is
necessary to achieve these targets will also affect air pollutant emissions. The implications of the
new Climate and Energy policy on the Clean Air Policy Package have been explored in a study
performed on request of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee (Amann 2014).
Specifically, the Committee asked to identify the economically optimal ‘gap‐closure’ based on an
analysis of marginal costs and benefits of air quality policy measures in 2020, 2025 and 2030.
As mentioned above, a scenario that closely resembles the targets established in the Climate and
Energy Policy Package would reduce CO2 emissions in the EU‐28 between 2005 and 2030 by 34%. For
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Livestock units (1000 LSU)
Hungary: Pigs ‐ COM scenario
Hungary: Pigs ‐ National scenario
Hungary: Cattle ‐ COM scenario
Hungary: Cattle ‐ National scenario
Slovakia: Pigs ‐COM scenario
Slovakia: Pigs ‐ National scenario
Page 23
comparison, in the PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE scenario that provided the starting point for all
analyses for the Commission proposal on the Clean Air Policy Package, CO2 emissions decline by 27%
in the same period, and by 25% in the national projections on energy use that have been supplied by
11 Member States.
The study found that in 2030, under the CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY scenario, the originally
proposed emission ceilings could be achieved at €5.5 bn/yr (or 5.7%) lower air pollution control
costs than estimated in the Commission proposal. Thereby, the EU would spend €2.2 bn/yr less on
air pollution controls than otherwise just for implementation of the current air pollution legislation.
At the same time, cleaner air would provide an additional 2.2 million life years annually to the
European population and increase statistical life expectancy by 4.4 months compared to 2005.
An economically optimal ambition would aim for a seven percent more stringent health target
compared to the Commission proposal, which could be achieved at 66% lower air pollution control
costs. In 2030, this would save an additional 140,000 life years annually, corresponding to monetized
health benefits between €8.4 bn/yr and €50.8 bn/yr.
The analysis for the European Parliament was conducted on the original GAINS database that did not
yet include the new statistical information that emerged during the bilateral consultations with
Member States. While the quantitative findings might change for the updated data set, it is clear
that the new climate and energy policy will significantly affect baseline emissions of SO2, NOx and
PM. This will also affect the emission levels that could be achieved through the additionally available
measures. For the particular version of the database, the CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY scenario
would allow for PM2.5 emissions to decline by three percentage points more than the PRIMES 2013
REFERENCE scenario. NOx could be lower by two percentage points, and SO2 by one percentage
point. It is likely that these features would apply for the updated GAINS dataset as well, so that the
margin of the re‐optimized emission reduction requirements to the feasibility limits would increase
to similar extents compared to what is computed for the PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE scenario.
Table 5.3: Current legislation emissions (CLE) and Maximum technically feasible emission reductions (MTFR) for the CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY and the PRIMES REFERENCE scenarios in 2030 (emission changes relative to 2005). These estimates refer to the GAINS database employed for the Commission proposal, and do not consider new information that has emerged in the course of the bilateral consultations.
Current legislation baseline (CLE) Maximum technically feasible reductions (MTFR)
CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY
scenario
PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE scenario
CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY
scenario
PRIMES 2013 REFERENCE scenario
SO2 ‐75% ‐73% ‐84% ‐83%
NOx ‐68% ‐65% ‐76% ‐74%
PM2.5 ‐34% ‐27% ‐66% ‐63%
NH3 ‐7% ‐7% ‐35% ‐35%
VOC ‐43% ‐41% ‐66% ‐66%
Page 24
6 Summary
With the new information that has been provided by Member States in the course of the bilateral
consultations, an updated emission control scenario has been developed that achieves the same
relative reduction in premature mortality as the original Commission proposal (52% compared to
2005) with the same gap closure of 67%.
While the overall reduction of PM precursor emissions (primary PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC and NH3)
converted into 'PM equivalent emission quantities' remains the same compared to 2005, the costs
for implementation of current legislation and emission reductions beyond current legislation are
lower than previously estimated. This is due to a shift in emission reductions across pollutants, with
more reductions from primary PM2.5, and less from other pollutants compared to 2005. For the EU‐
28 as a whole, the cuts of primary PM2.5 relative to 2005 increase to ‐54% from –51%, with much of
the increase coming from current legislation (in fact the additional reductions on top of current
legislation in 2030 are actually two percentage points lower than in the original proposal).
The cut in SO2 emissions does not change at the EU‐28 level, but emission reduction requirements
for NOX, VOC and NH3 are softened: NOx from 69% to 65%, VOC from 50% to 46% and NH3 from 27%
to 25% (all relative to 2005). About half of the PM equivalent emission reductions that emerge as
cost‐effective in 2030 have already been achieved in 2012 according to the latest reporting, and
about 60% should be attained by the time the 2020 (Gothenburg Protocol) targets are met. In 2030,
current emission control legislation and projected activity changes in the baseline should achieve
almost 90% of the required SO2 reductions, and more than 95% of the NOx reductions.
Implementation of new EU‐wide legislation (i.e., new BAT conclusions, MCP and NRMM directives)
would result in additional reductions beyond what is expected to be delivered by current legislation
that would largely fill the remaining gap towards the required reductions for SO2 and NOX. For PM,
current legislation is expected to deliver 60% of the required emission reduction, and the IED, MCP,
NRMM and Ecodesign directives would further deliver a large part of the additional reductions
required. With respect to NH3 and VOC, current emission control legislation and projected activity
changes resulting from the revised baseline would deliver about 30% of the reduction for NH3 and
85% for VOC.
As agreed, some further sensitivity analysis has also been done based on national perspectives on
economic development and energy policies, which sometimes differ from the Europe‐wide coherent
scenario used for the above analysis. National projections of activity levels were provided by 19
Member States, although most projections did not cover all emission sources. Furthermore, the
alternative projections were not mutually consistent, were not always in line with established
targets of EU policies, and led to less CO2 emission reduction than the PRIMES reference scenario
used for the Commission' proposal. However, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine ‐ for
the Member States that provided national projections ‐ the technical feasibility of the emission
reduction commitments of the updated policy scenario presented in this report, under the
alternative national projections.
The outcome is that, with very few exceptions, the updated emission reduction requirements are
also technically feasible under the alternative national projections. The only situations where the
updated reduction requirement would not be attainable with the available technical emission
control measures are the NH3 targets for Hungary, Slovakia and the UK. Of these, UK and Slovakia
are marginal, and the only substantive issue is with Hungary, due to the national scenario estimating
total livestock number in 2030 at 71% higher than the corresponding EU (CAPRI) projection.
Page 25
National scenarios are also less optimistic about the effects of climate policies and imply for 2030
higher CO2 emissions than the baseline scenario that has been used by the Commission for the
original proposal in 2013. The Climate and Energy Policy Package that has been agreed upon in 2014
envisages substantially lower CO2 emissions in the future, and would result as a co‐benefit in lower
SO2, NOx and PM2.5 emissions compared to what has been assumed for the Clean Air Policy Package.
Thus, the recent agreement on climate and energy policy offers an additional margin for the
attainability of the emission reduction requirements.
Page 26
References
Amann M (2014) Complementary Impact Assessment on interactions between EU air quality policy and climate and energy policy. European Parliamentay Research Service, Brussels, Belgium
Amann M, Borken‐Kleefeld J, Cofala J, et al. (2014a) The Final Policy Scenarios of the EU Clean Air Policy Package. TSAP Report #11. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Amann M, Borken‐Kleefeld J, Cofala J, et al. (2014b) Updates to the GAINS Model Databases after the Bilateral Consultations with National Experts in 2014. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria.
Amann M, Borken‐Kleefeld J, Cofala J, et al. (2014c) Updates to the GAINS Model Databases after the Bilateral Consultations with National Experts in 2014. TSAP Report #14. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Barker T, Bashmakov I, Alharti A, et al. (2007) Mitigation from a cross‐sectoral perspective. Clim. Change 2007 Mitig. Contrib. Work. Group III Fourth Assess. Rep. Intergov. Panel Clim. Change
EC (2013a) Impact Assessment accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a Clean Air Programme for Europe. European Commission (EC), Brussels, Belgium
EC (2013b) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants and amending Directive 2003/35/EC. European Commission (EC), Brussels, Belgium
EC (2014a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions: A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. European Commission (EC), Belgium, Brussels
EC (2014b) Energy efficiency and its contribution to energy security and the 2030 Framework for climate and energy policy, Communication, , COM (2014) 520 final. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium
Kiesewetter G, Amann M (2014) Urban PM2.5 levels under the EU Clean Air Policy Package. TSAP Report #12. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg
Page 27
7 Annex: Results by Member State
7.1 Emission reduction requirements relative to 2005
Table 7.1: SO2 emission reductions relative to 2005. 2012: reported in 2014, 2020: Gothenburg Commitment, 2030 numbers computed by GAINS, relative to GAINS 2005 estimates
1) National submission as of 2014, adjusted to the GAINS source coverage
Page 39
7.3 Emissions control costs
Table 7.13: Emission control costs (on top of current legislation) of the WPE 2014 analyses compared with the calculations for the COM 2013 proposal (€ million/year)
WPE 2014 GAINS analysis COM 2013 GAINS analysis Difference